2555

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal Education Agency

SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

Voronezh State Technical University

“Modern Linguistic and

Methodical-and-Didactic Researches”

The journal has been publishing since 2012

Issue № 2 (17), 2017

CONTENTS

Fomina Z. Ye. Introductory Remarks of the Editor-in-Chief of the Series «Modern Linguistic

LINGUISTICS

Souleimanova О.А., Fomina М.А. The Potential of the Semantic Experiment for Testing

METHODS AND DIDACTICS

Sorokovykh G.V. The Problem of Personalization in Terms of Inclusive Foreign-language

5

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

Z. Ye. Fomina: Inroductory Remarks of Editor-in chief of the Scientific Journal «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches»

Issue 2 (17) of the linguistic Series of the Scientific Journal “Modern

Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” contains the following sections: "Linguistics", "Methods and Didactics of Teaching Foreign Languages", "Intercultural Communication", "Theory and Practice of Translation". Sixteenth series presents 15 articles.

THE LINGUISTIC SECTION reflects theoretically and practically significant research results of the scientists in the field of semantic research, semantic syntax, advertising discourse, cognitive linguistics, metaphor theory, language philosophy, hermeneutics, philosophical discourse, etc.

The LINGUISTIC section presents 6 articles on the scientific fields given above. The joint work by Professor O.A. Suleymanova and Associate Professor M.A. Fomina (Moscow, MSPU) is focused on the consideration of the types of linguistic experiments. The authors make more precise the understanding of the role of the informant and researcher’s introspection in the semantic experiment. The aim of the article by Associate Professor I.A. Verkhovkh (Moscow) is to carry out a comparative analysis of advertising texts of the early 2000s and of the present day, as well as to determine the rate of changes in the range of linguistic means of expressiveness. Professor Z.Ye. Fomina (Voronezh, VSTU) and postgraduate student O.V. Zhuykova (Voronezh, VSTU) focus their attention on the metaphor of light and fire considered by the authors as a means of linguistic representation of the cognitive concepts "Language", "Thought" and "Spirit" in the philosophical discourse of V. von Humboldt. Assosiate Professor I.Yu. Lavrinenko (Voronezh, VSTU) carries out semantic-and-cognitive analysis of the concept Truth in the philosophical discourse of F. Bacon, reveals its means of vrbal explication, central and peripheral features, its types and also clarifies the phenomenon of F. Bacon as a linguistic personality. In the article of the Postgraduate Student L.V. Korobko Voronezh, VSTU) the nominations of the musical instruments determining th concept “Music” in the linguistic world picture of O. Wilde are analyzed. Associate Professor K.H. Rekosh (Moscow, MSIIR (U)) studies the problem of hermeneutic understanding of legal text.

The results of topical methodical-and-didactic studies are presented in the section of the "METHODS AND DIDACTICS" (2 articles). The article by Professor G.V. Sorokovykh (Moscow) is devoted to the study of personalization of foreign-language teaching as a linguodidactic problem. Galina Victorovna gives the ideas for developing special adjustive programs for foreign language teaching in terms of inclusive teaching. The emphasis is placed on the necessity to design an individual educational system. The senior teacher O.F. Nesterova (Voronezh, VSTU), poses the problem of determining the role of the motivating words` stems using the material of technical texts, referring to the analysis of the word-formation possibilities of the basic lexemes depending on their partial characteristics.

The section "INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION" presents 4 articles, one of which is written by Professor of Kyoto University Yoshito Takahashi. Our colleague addresses the works of the great Japanese writer and poet Ogai Mori, who is called “The Japanese Goethe”. Professor Takahashi analyses Ogai Mori as Aanti-Faust, revealing the global problem of the world view of West and East on the example of contrasting the European idea of soul and the Japanese vision. The article by Associate Professor V.М. Kosteva (Moscow, Pushkin State Russian language Institute) is focused on the consideration of the philosophy of language in Spain during F. Franco`s rule from the standpoint of "totalitarian" linguistics as a phenomenon generated by totalitarian society. Postgraduate student A.V. Pilevtseva (Voronezh, VSTU) analyses German peasants` weather signs with the name of saint, presented in the form of a rhyme

6

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

structure, in the linguistic-and-cultural aspect. The article by postgraduate A.V. Petrushkina (Moscow, MCSU) presents the results of the investigation of the changes in the representation of men and women in the phraseological nominations of a person in the German language in the period from 1992 to 2013.

The section "THEORY AND PRACTICE OF TRANSLATION" presents 3 articles devoted to the topical problems conneted, in particular, with translation of "color naming", criminal prosecution terms. The aspects of optimization of the translation process are covered. Thus, Senior Lecturer E.A. Skoptsova (Saransk) and Associate Professor E.V. Savina (Saransk) consider the problem of translating color names into Russian, used, in particular, in foreign language catalogs of modern fashion. The article by Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor N.A. Kalmazova (Saratov) analyzes the adaptive strategy of translation on the basis of terms of the terminological field criminal prosecutio in the two languages Russian - English, the ultimate goal of which is the harmonious adaptation of the text from the source to target culture. Topical problems related to the optimization of the translation process are analyzed in the article by PhD in Philology, Associate Professor Yu.I. Nazarchuk (Tiraspol).

The section "SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION" presents the review by Doctor of Philology, Professor Z.Ye. Fomina on the book "Koreanisch im Spiegel des Deutschen - Kontrastivlinguistische Analysen" ("The Korean language in the Mirror of the German Language - Con- trastive-and-Linguistic Researches"), written by Frank Kostrtseva, a famous German scientist, Professor of Karlsruisk University (Germany). This section also contains the information by V.I. Chechetka, Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor and by L.V. Lukina, Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor about the International Scientific Conference on the theme “Language in the Intercultural Communication” held in Vilnius University from May 17 to 20, 2017.

The journal includes the works of both domestic scientists working in academic scientific organizations and in various Universities of our country, in particular, in Moscow (Pushkin State Russian language Institute, Center for Humanitarian Education of Moscow Polytechnic University, Moscow City Pedagogical University); Saratov, Saransk, Voronezh, and foreign universities (Japan, Kyoto University), Tiraspol (Pridnestrovie).

This issue is characterized by a wide range of problems and scientific directions, reflected in the publications of our domestic and foreign colleagues. The scientific problems of respected authors demonstrate topical trends in modern linguistic science, methods and didactics of teaching foreign languages, intercultural communication, theory and practice of translation, literary criticism and language philosophy.

We believe that this seventieth Series will be interesting and useful for a wide range of philologists, foreign language teachers, culturologists, literary critics, philosophers, postgraduate students and students, as well as for all our respected domestic and foreign readers.

Editor-in-Chief of the Scientific Journal

“Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-

Didactic Researches” of Voronezh State Technical

University, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of

The Chair of Foreign Language, Honorary Person of the

Professional Education, Corresponding Member of the

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Z.Ye. Fomina

7

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

LINGUISTICS

UDC 81-13

THE POTENTIAL OF THE SEMANTIC EXPERIMENT FOR TESTING

HYPOTHESES

О.А. Souleimanova, М.А. Fomina

________________________________________________________________________

Institute of Foreign Languages Moscow City University

Doctor of Philology, professor, Head of the Chair of Linguistics and Translation Studies, European Languages and Translation Studies, Institute of Foreign Languages, MCU Оlga Arkadyevna Souleimanova

e-mail: olgasoul@rambler.ru

Institute of Foreign Languages Moscow City University

PhD (Philology), associate professor of the Chair of Linguistics and Translation Studies, Institute of Foreign Languages, MCU

Marina Arkadyevna Fomina e-mail: marinafomina7@gmail.com

_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. Modern linguistics calls for more objective evaluation of linguistic data and thus requires new research methods and techniques. In addition to well-known research procedures, the linguistic experiment, being entirely based on interviews with native speakers (often referred to as ‘informants’), is rapidly getting ground. The linguistic experiment is an integral, indispensable part of the complex research procedure often referred to as the hypothesis-deduction method.

Despite a great number of linguistic investigations based on the linguistic experiment there are still some doubts as to the validity of experimental data, the role of informants and researcher’s introspection in the semantic experiment and many others. Indeed even if the experiment is thoroughly elaborated, some discrepancies in the grades that the informants use to assess the correctness / incorrectness of the utterances are still possible due to the random noise that accompanies any experiment. First, the performance of informants can be influenced by psychological factors: informants may fail to concentrate on the experiment or to treat it seriously; they may feel tired, etc. Secondly, the discrepancies can result from differing language codes of informants. Lastly, the situation presented in an utterance can be treated from different perspectives by different informants. Although the researcher cannot prevent the disagreement between the grades of different informants caused by the random factors, there are math- ematical-statistical methods that enable him/her to define the trend and separate the random noise from the objective data.

Results. The paper researches into the typology of linguistic experiments; the sufficient number of informants to get valid experimental data; the role of the informant and researcher’s introspection in the semantic experiment.

The authors describe a step-by-step semantic research technique while studying the semantic features of the group of English synonymous adjectives − strange, weird, odd and queer; they also focus on mathematical-statistical methods and procedures that can help separate the random factor from the grade determined by language system.

Conclusion. Now it is possible to speak about the necessity of using the experimental methods in Linguistics together with the other brnches of science and about the approaching of Linguistics to other exact sciences. The development of the system of verification of the hypotheses and the creation of well-established typology of experiments and their detailed description is of paramount importance.

Keywords: linguistic experiment, informant, introspection, semantics, expert appraisal technique.

_____________________________________

© Souleimanova О.А., Fomina М.А., 2017

8

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

Introduction.

In the 20th century linguistics started as a purely descriptive science to become a modern technologically advanced science with its own well-developed verification procedures and experimental practices which is steadily narrowing the gap between linguistics (as an originally descriptive science) and sciences. The results of linguistic research get the status of tested and proved theories and established laws. One of the key indicators of the experiment-based science in this case is the development of experimental explorations in the field. Experimental techniques are used in semantics, psycholinguistics, linguistic typology and sociolinguistics.

Theoretical grounds for applying experiment in semantics and some difficulties the researcher is facing when staging the experiment were tackled by O.N. Seliverstova [1], its step- by-step procedure has been extensively discussed in linguistics (cf. [2, 3, 4, 5]). Some aspects of experimental techniques, however, are still questionable, for instance, the role of the informant in the semantic experiment, the role of introspection; reliability of the informants, and their sufficient number for the experimental data to be accepted as reliable.

Consider types of linguistic experiments and related issues such as the required number of informants; exemplify the semantic experimental procedure with the experimental research into semantics of some English adjectives which convey the general meaning strange; we shall focus on arguable aspects of experimental procedure, related to reliability and credibility of the data obtained from informants.

1. Types of Linguistic Experiments

Linguistic experiments are classified according to the research goals and the procedures used. The experiment is understood as “the procedure in which the analysed phenomenon is reproduced in the conditions which reveal the dependence of this phenomenon upon these or those parameters “[1, p. 93]. Then, “the most important requirement the experiment is to meet is its potential recurrence and possibility to monitor the conditions it depends on” [ibid].

Consider the types of experiments.

A psycholinguistic experiment (most often it is an associative one) states its objective as studying how the cognitive (linguistic) structures are related (it does not deal with the semantics of the word!); it is based on the analysis of spontaneous reactions to the produced stimuli. The format and the goal of a psycholinguistic experiment explain why the researcher has to question as many informants as possible. Actually, in this case we cannot double-check and prove in any other objective way what we hypothesize – the only criterion we rely on is similar reactions of many informants, and it determines the size of the sampling.

In an experiment in linguistic typology “the studied language is not native to the researcher who even may not know the language at the beginning of research” [6, c. 39]; what matters most for the researcher is to introduce new linguistic data into linguistics with the longterm perspective to provide more linguistic data for further research [ibid, p. 40]. Such an experiment is based on the analysis of spontaneously produced speech acts and the informant’s ability to “use the language uncontrollably in communication” [ibid, p. 271] in natural or artificially constructed situations. The informants are often asked to compile a text – commenting a picture, or some situation, etc., while the researcher here is to try and reveal and describe phonological, morphological, derivational, grammatical (syntactic) system of the language he is studying.

A semantic experiment is an in-depth, thoughtful (not spontaneous!) analysis of the linguistic data by the informant; the analysis focusing on assessing the utterance as either correct or incorrect, the assessment relies on the linguistic competence of the informant; the requirement the informant is to meet is his ability to concentrate on his linguistic competence and his speech, and his practice in abstract thinking [1, c. 96-97]; what is not relevant for the semantic experiment is the speedy reaction, there is no time limit on the assessing correctness / incorrectness of the sentence.

9

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

As for experimental procedures in sociolinguistics, not all researchers qualify them as experiments, though the sociolinguistic practices actually meet the requirements which experimental research is expected to meet, i.e., in many sociolinguistic experiments a scientist does not restrict his research to observation only. On the contrary, (as can be seen, e.g., in investigating age-related perception of verbal conceptualization of a denoted situation in the work of T.G. Vinokur), in social linguistics researchers often combine recording with the well-planned interviews [7, c. 43-48] (see the definition of the experiment above). We have to emphasize here though, that a sociolinguistic interview is reduced to offering the informant a set of options from which to choose, then recording frequencies, and is not focused on exploring semantics of a linguistic sign.

To sum it up, a semantic experiment has little in common with the experiments used in psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and linguistic typology.

2. Number of Informants

Different formats of linguistic experiment call for a different number of informants. According to different sources, in the semantic experiment it is sufficient to interview 12-15 informants [8]. To estimate the sufficient number of informants for the results to be qualified as credible and reliable, a special research was carried out; we took 17 semantically and syntactically similar utterances which contained two synonymous words. 9 informants were interviewed, so the sampling amounted to 153 cases (the sampling equals the number of utterances times number of informants). Then, each obtained grade (represented as 1, 2, 3, 4) is treated as a random value (as it is common in mathematical statistics, which is working with the data, representing experimental digital values).

Any random value is a combination of some objective component, or deterministic part (reflecting, in our case, the system of language), and a subjective one (reflecting a subjective factor – informant’s emotional and physical state at the time of the interview which may add some random noise).

The set of grades obtained was analysed using well-developed algorithms of the mathematical probability theory. It was established that reliable results which fall within the so-called reliable interval, were recorded with the sampling of 25-40 cases, and increasing the number of utterances / informants did not affect the results.

Some more experimental iterations led us to the final conclusion that basically it is sufficient to interview 5-8 informants, on the condition that the sampling be equal to 25-40 cases [9, p. 23].

In addition to the mathematical statistics support, these figures are also – although indirectly − supported by the format of the semantic experiment, i.e., as L.V. Scherba claimed, after you put forward a hypothesis about some linguistic fact, you have to prove it through new facts which means that it is necessary to check if the occurrences which are predicted by the hypothesis do exist [10].

In other words, after you suggest a hypothesis (a rule) about the meaning of some word or sentence, word combination, etc., you have to try to produce some utterances which are based on that rule and see if the utterances are correct and fully acceptable and fully comply with the syntactic and semantic system of language [11]. So, having put forward a hypothesis and experimentally proved it, the researcher can proceed to produce utterances which comply with the hypothesis, in this way verifying the hypothesis through practical usage. In this case, the resulting utterances are assessed either as correct or incorrect, the assessment being based on the linguistic competence of the native speaker of the language. (It is impossible, however, in a psycholinguistic experiment, where we cannot check and double check how meanings are related to each other in our consciousness.)

It means that in a semantic experiment each time we make up an utterance and assess it as correct / incorrect we practically assess the hypothesis (which is impossible, e.g., in the association experiment – in association experiment for each new verification a researcher has to plan

10

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

and conduct a new experiment with new informants. A researcher has his own introspection to rely on, which in this case is not free from theoretical mindsets of the researcher.)

Methodology.

3. Semantic Research and Experiment

In semantics an experiment makes the integral part of the hypothesis-deduction method (HDM) which, as O.N. Seliverstova and Ju.D. Apresjan believe, consists of four basic steps: 1) collecting practical data and their first analysis; 2) putting forward a theory in the form and status of a hypothesis which can explain the practical data, and relating the hypothesis to other existing theories; 3) deducing from the suggested theories; 4) verifying the theory by relating the deduced rule to the linguistic facts [11].

O.S. Belaichuk, building up on HDM, worked out a step-by-step procedure of semantic experiment, a kind of research practical technology [3]. Let us demonstrate how it works on the semantic analysis of the meanings of English adjectives strange, weird, odd и queer [12].

On the first stage of the experiment a researcher collects examples of occurrences of the chosen words in natural speech (both written and oral), through continuous sampling from dictionaries. A dictionary as a source of linguistic examples is quite reliable, while the definitions of meanings cannot be fully and blindly relied on. Many linguists criticize “monocentric research” which is entirely based on the cognitive interpretation of meaning definitions in dictionary entries only [13, p. 49]. Cf. also [14], where the semantic features are defined on the basis of dictionary entries; O.N. Seliverstova remarks that “as in the dictionary entries, together with the reliable, some unreliable information is presented, and dictionary definitions are often deficient, the researcher’s job cannot be reduced to their systematic arrangement only – it must be accompanied by experimental verification” [1, p. 90]. Examples are also sampled from mass media texts from language corpora (for example British National Corpus); fiction, English internet sites, etc.

On the next stage the left and right distribution of the element, its valence and contextual co-occurrence is calculated; so, all co-occurrences with the elements of the same language level (words against words) are recorded [15, c. 40]. The results of this preliminary analysis enable the researcher to frame a h y p o t h e s i s on the meaning of the linguistic element in question. The researcher, however, may not have any distinct hypothesis at hand at this stage of research

– for example, in investigating semantics of adjectives strange, weird, odd, queer we found a lot of utterances in which these words co-occurred with the word voice; with the words denoting parts of the body; with words denoting products of mental activities (dream, thought), etc. In this case we failed to put forward any comprehensive hypothesis on the meanings of the chosen adjectives.

On the third step we arrange a representative sampling which is meant to somehow reduce the practically infinite (in some cases) sampling to a workable set. To do that, some representatives are selected: for example, a researcher groups together similar sentences, first of all simple ones, where the chosen words are used in similar contexts and syntactically similar constructions (e.g. He had a s t r a n g e voice. His voice was s t r a n g e . He spoke in a s t r a n g e voice. I heard a s t r a n g e voice, etc.).

At the next, fourth step, an original word in the representative sampling is substituted by its synonym. For example, in the original sentence He spoke in the s t r a n g e s t of voices the word strange is replaced by the adjective odd: He spoke in the o d d e s t of voices. Then other synonyms are also put in the same context: weird and queer.

We emphasize once again that in this particular case we did not have any hypothesis explaining the difference in the meanings of the given adjectives. The information in the dictionary entries was ambiguous and did not make it possible to morph a plausible hypothesis as regards the semantic features in the semantic structure of the adjectives – cf. their definitions in the dictionary, when one of them is explained using the other, forming kind of a “vicious circle”: odd – s t r a n g e , not ordinary, surprising [1**]; weird – s t r a n g e , q u e e r , supernat-

11

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

ural [ibid]; strange – o d d , quite unusual or uncommon [ibid], thus the difference in their meanings remains unclear. (This difference does distinguish the words – it can be easily proved: it is impossible in many cases to substitute one of the words by another, as the resulting sentence either is unacceptable or simply does not make sense at all. For example, replacing the word weird in the sentence to follow W e i r d things were happening by the word queer results in the sentence which was marked as not acceptable under normal circumstances by native speakers – *Q u e e r things were happening.)

At the next step the experimental sampling was shown to the interviewed native speaker to be assessed by him as either correct or incorrect, relying on his linguistic competence. When working with informants and assessing the sentences, a researcher can use a scale suggested by A. Timberlake [16]:

Consider a fragment of a scale below used in the experiment-interview of native speakers of English [17, p. 410-411].

QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: ________________________________

Nationality: ____________________________

Age: __________________________________

Qualifications: __________________________

DIRECTIONS

Grade each of the sentences below according to the following scale:

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue № 2 (17), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

N O T E : Grade sentences with reference to the norm of standard English (slang, vernacular, argot or stylistically marked words a r e n o t i n t h e f o c u s of investigation)

U s e f u l h i n t s t o p r e v e n t p o s s i b l e m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n

!Do not try to assess the degree of synonymy of the words analysed

!Do not develop possible contexts that may seem to be implied by the words used in the statements; assess the acceptability of the utterances judging by the way the information is presented

!Still if you feel that the context is insufficient to assess the acceptability of the sentence suggest your own context in the column “comments” corresponding to the sentence (A-G). Then grade the utterance according to the context offered by you

A n y o f y o u r c o m m e n t s w i l l b e h i g h l y a p p r e c i a t e d !

RATING COMMENTS

1He’s got a strange habit of stroking his nose when he’s trying to think

He’s got a weird habit of stroking his nose when he’s trying to think

He’s got an odd habit of stroking his nose when he’s trying to think

He’s got a queer habit of stroking his nose when he’s trying to think

T H A N K Y O U .

The resulting data naturally divides itself into the marked and unmarked sentences, or the sentences which were graded as acceptable and unacceptable. It means that at this sixth step we obtain the so-called “negative linguistic material” (the term used by L.V. Scherba), which will serve as a helping hand in hypothesizing about the semantic features which distinguish the adjectives in question.

As a result of the experiment, we put forward some hypotheses presumably explaining the differences in the words’ meanings (the seventh step) – for more details see Results below.

At the eighth stage the hypothesis is tested on the available material. For example, the sampling featured a variety of sentences which testify in favour of our hypothesis on the meaning of the chosen words (for the results of the experiment and hypotheses proved see Results below), cf.: There was an o d d sympathy between the two, and Renee let the child play with her jewelry and her furs (J. Cheever. The Sutton Place Story), where the relationship of a fiveyear old girl and a mature female is described, the accent is that in general such a relationship is not typical for both participants to the situation.

Cf. also the description of the ailing condition of the protagonist, when she distinguishes some new property in a familiar object:

“I’m conscious – it’s night and there are two candles on the table making the black press shine like jet”.

“The black jet? Where is it?” I asked. “You are talking in your sleep”.

“It’s against the wall, as it always is”, she replied. It does seem o d d – I see a face on it”

(E. Bronte. Wuthering Heights).

13